CC Filed on 23.08.2011
Disposed on 27.08.2011
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR.
Dated: 27th day of August 2011
PRESENT:
HONORABLE T. RAJASHEKHARAIAH, President.
HONORABLE T.NAGARAJA, Member.
HONORABLE K.G.SHANTALA, Member.
---
Consumer Complaint No. 190/2011
Between:
Sri. Venkatesh, S/o. Yelagappa, Aged about 34 years, R/o. Shakti Nagar, Gandhi Circle, Malur Town, Kolar District. (By Advocate Sri. P.N. Srinath) | ….Complainant |
V/S 1. M/s. Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd., 34th KM Stone, Teppada Begur, N.H. 04 Road, Nelamangala – 562 123. 2. M/s. Vinay Enterprises, R.P. Circle, Malur Town, Kolar District. Represented by its Proprietor, Ramachandrappa. | ….Opposite Party |
ORDER
This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant contends that he is working as Delivery Boy under the Opposite Party No.2, who is a Distributor of pepsi bottles. On 29.06.2011 the complainant was loading the said pepsi bottles to the auto rickshaw at the Opposite Party No.2 distribution office at 12.30 p.m. In the process of loading, one of the pepsi bottle got burst and glass pieces pierced into the right eye of the complainant. The complainant was taken to the hospital and he was treated as inpatient and all the efforts made by the Doctors to save the right eye, went in vain and the complainant lost his right eye due to damage to optic nerve, it caused cent percent disability due to loss of complete vision in the eye sight with tearing of water from right eye. As a Driver the loss of vision in one eye amounts to 100% disability. The complainant was aged about 34 years and he was getting salary of Rs.5,000/- and he has spent Rs.50,000/- towards treatment. The complainant made claim with the Opposite Parties and the Opposite Party No.2 assured to pay compensation. The Opposite Party No.1 is the principal employer and the Opposite Party No.2 is the employer. Hence both are jointly and severally liable. The notice was issued and the Opposite Parties have not responded to pay the compensation. Hence this complaint is filed.
2. The case was posted to hear on the question of admission and the Learned Counsel for the complainant has been heard and the case is posted for orders on admission.
3. The question that arises for consideration is:
Whether there is sufficient cause to proceed
with the complaint?
4. In our opinion the dispute is between the parties does not amount to a ‘Consumer’ dispute and this Forum does not have jurisdiction and for that reason, it is not proper to proceed with the complaint. The alleged facts goes to show that the relationship between the complainant and Opposite Party No.2 is that of ‘workman’ and ‘employer’ and the dispute is trailable either under the Workmanship Act or under any other relevant Labour Laws. As the dispute is that of ‘workman’ and ‘employer’, it is not trailable by this Forum. The alleged facts does not constitute a ‘Consumer’ dispute. The complainant was not hiring any service of the Opposite Parties and he has not purchased any goods for consideration from the Opposite Parties. Hence he does not constitute a ‘Consumer’ and a dispute does not also constitute a ‘Consumer’ dispute. Hence no useful purpose will be served if the complaint is continued. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed at the stage of admission. Hence we pass the following:
O R D E R
It is held that there is no ‘Consumer’ dispute between the parties and the complaint is dismissed at the stage of admission, with liberty to file the case in proper Forum.
Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced in open Forum this the 27th day of August 2011.
T. NAGARAJA K.G.SHANTALA T. RAJASHEKHARAIAH
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
